robert h. sharf ON PURE LAND BUDDHISM AND CH AN/PURE LAND SYNCRETISM IN MEDIEVAL CHINA ROBERT H. SHARF University of Michigan

Transcription

1 282 robert h. sharf ON PURE LAND BUDDHISM AND CH AN/PURE LAND SYNCRETISM IN MEDIEVAL CHINA BY ROBERT H. SHARF University of Michigan It is rare to find a modern account of medieval Chinese Buddhism 1 that does not organize the subject in terms of various schools or traditions, such as Ch an 禪, T ien-t ai 天台, Hua-yen 華嚴, Fa-hsiang 法相, and Ching-t u 淨土. The Ching-t u or Pure Land school, like the others, is typically presented as a more-or-less indigenous Chinese development, complete with its own set of privileged scriptures and its own line of esteemed patriarchs. Thus, while T ient ai is based on the SaddharmapuÖ arêka-såtra (Lotus Scripture), Huayen on the AvataÒsaka-såtra (Flower Garland Scripture), and Ch an on the Vajracchedik (Diamond Scripture) or on the discourse records of past masters (yü-lu 語錄 ), Chinese Pure Land is based on the authority of three or four Pure Land scriptures as interpreted by a handful of Pure Land patriarchs, notably T an-luan 曇鸞 ( ), Tao-ch o 道綽 ( ), and Shan-tao 善導 ( ). 2 The Pure Land school is known for its emphasis on faith in the power of Amit bha s vows, on the practice of the recitation/invocation of An early version of this paper was presented at the Third Chung-Hwa International Conference on Buddhism, Taipei, July I would like to thank the participants of that conference for their comments and advice, especially Daniel Getz and Daniel Stevenson. I am also indebted to Barend J. ter Haar, James Robson, Elizabeth Horton Sharf, and an anonymous reviewer for T oung Pao, for their comments and suggestions on later drafts of this article. 1 In this essay I use medieval quite loosely to refer to the period extending from the Six Dynasties through the Sung. 2 The category Pure Land scriptures comprises two Indian texts: the Larger and Smaller Sukh vatêvyåha-såtras (Scriptures on the Land of Bliss), which exist in various Chinese translations, as well as the Kuan Wu-liang-shou-fo ching 觀無量壽佛經 (Scripture on the Contemplation on the Buddha of Immeasurable Life), which is likely of Central Asian origin. The Pratyutpannasam dhi-såtra (Pan-chou san-mei ching, 般舟三昧經 ), another Indian work that survives in multiple Chinese translations, is sometimes added to the list. Brill, Leiden, 2002 T2oung Pao LXXXVIII Also available online

2 on pure land buddhism 283 Amit bha s name (nien-fo 念佛 ), and on the goal of rebirth in Amit bha s Western Pure Land. 3 The Ch an and Pure Land schools came to dominate post-t ang Buddhism, we are told, because both were better able to survive the An Lu-shan 安祿山 rebellion of 755 and the Hui-ch ang 會昌 persecution of the 840s than were other more scholastically oriented traditions. 4 (Traditions such as Hua-yen, Fa-hsiang, and T ien-t ai were supposedly more dependent on state patronage and thus more vulnerable to the vagaries of government policy and political crises.) By the early Sung the doctrinal foundations for a synthesis of Ch an and Pure Land were in place, and Ch an-pure Land syncretism became the dominant form of Buddhism in China from the end of the Sung down to the present day. This, in brief, is the account repeated in numerous reputable contemporary sources. While few scholars of East Asian Buddhism have explicitly questioned this narrative, many are aware of certain problems, particularly with the designation of Pure Land as a discrete school. One can speak of medieval Chinese monasteries being affiliated with Ch an, Lü 律 (vinaya, monastic discipline), or Chiao 教 (teachings, i.e., T ient ai) lineages, and yet the same cannot be said of Pure Land; there was neither a mechanism nor a precedent for officially designating a monastery a Pure Land establishment. 5 This is not surprising, as there were no official Pure Land monks to oversee such establishments: there was neither an ordination rite nor a dharma-transmission ceremony that would render a monk a member of a distinctively Pure Land lineage. And while modern scholars refer to monks such as T an-luan, Tao-ch o, and Shan-tao as Pure Land patriarchs, there is little evidence that these clerics envisioned themselves as members of or advocates for an independent Pure Land school. There was, in 3 I use the Sanskrit name Amit bha throughout this paper as a convenient shorthand. The Chinese treated the Sanskrit Amit yus ( immeasurable life, C: Wu-liang-shou 無量壽 ) and Amit bha ( immeasurable light, C: Wu-liang-kuang 無量光, but frequently rendered Wu-liang-shou) as two names for one and the same buddha, and they transliterated both as O-mi-t o 阿彌陀 ; see Fujita 1996b: See, for example, Ch en 1964: ; Weinstein 1987: 63; and Yü 1981: In the Sung period, monasteries that emphasized devotional practices oriented toward Amit bha, many of which had T ien-t ai connections, were often named White Lotus Monasteries, a practice that continued well into the Ming. But as far as I am aware, such a designation had no formal institutional ramifications. For references, see ter Haar 1992: 18 n. 7. On the three-fold classification of Chinese Buddhist monasteries, see Yü 1981:

3 284 robert h. sharf short, nothing that could be construed as a Pure Land ecclesiastical organization in medieval China. Accordingly, in their pioneering studies of T ang Pure Land figures such as Tz u-min 慈愍 (Hui-jih 慧日, ), Ch eng-yüan 承遠 ( ), and Fa-chao 法照 (d. circa 820), the Japanese scholars Sasaki KÙsei and Tsukamoto Zenryå studiously avoided the term Pure Land school ( jùdo shå 淨土宗 ), preferring instead to speak of Pure Land teachings ( jùdo kyù 淨土教 ) or Pure Land belief/worship ( jùdo shinkù 淨土信仰 ). 6 Sasaki and Tsukamoto understood that there was no simple way to characterize the sectarian affiliation of these T ang figures. Tz u-min, Ch eng-yüan, and Fa-chao may have been esteemed as Pure Land masters in Japan, but Chinese sources depict them as involved in a wide array of religious activities, many of which are more commonly associated with the Ch an, T ien-t ai, or Vinaya traditions (see below). A number of Western and Chinese scholars have followed suit: they acknowledge that Pure Land never emerged as an independent school or sect per se in China, but they continue to treat it as a discrete movement, teaching, or tradition. 7 Was there not, 6 See esp. Sasaki 1925; Tsukamoto 1976a and 1976b. The date for Fa-chao s death is taken from Ono 1966: Chün-fang Yü notes that it is misleading to speak of a Pure Land school in the same way as we speak of the T ien-t ai or Ch an schools: To be sure, there were several Pure Land traditions, but there was no single Pure Land school with a genuine patriarchal transmission (Yü 1981: 31; see also ibid.: 38). Kenneth Tanaka also recognizes the difficulty and tries to distinguish orthodox Pure Land, by which he means the Pure Land of T an-luan, Tao-ch o, Shan-tao, and their intellectual heirs, from the more generalized phenomenon of Pure Land Buddhism (1990: xxiii). Tanaka, however, continues to treat orthodox Pure Land as an independent school based primarily on the doctrinal distinction between the difficult and the easy path (ibid.: 12). Julian Pas is more cautious, and argues that Pure Land is better thought of as a movement than a school, which during the Sung (if not before) and afterwards, was integrated into all the other schools, even into Ch an Buddhism (Pas 1995: 58). David Chappell draws a similar conclusion: Chinese Pure Land sectarianism was neither based on an exclusive organization nor limited to particular religious practices, but was a loosely knit association of those who were committed to single-minded devotion to Amit bha and rebirth in his Pure Land as the only guaranteed source of salvation (Chappell 1996: 145). In the most nuanced English treatment of the problem to date, Daniel Getz states: If... by school we mean a distinct community that traces its origins to a founding patriarch from whom descends a continuous lineage, then it is questionable whether Pure Land in China was ever a school. In the Northern Song... Pure Land was regarded and practiced as an integral part of the existing schools, primarily the T ien-t ai and Vinaya (Lü) schools as well as, to a varying degree, the Chan school (Getz 1994: 4; see also ibid.: , and Getz 1999a: 477). This is also the approach

4 on pure land buddhism 285 they would argue, a specifically Pure Land doctrinal, soteriological, or devotional orientation toward Buddhist thought and practice that stood in marked opposition to other Buddhist systems? Surely, the monks we now regard as Pure Land patriarchs sought to exalt Pure Land practices as superior to other forms of Buddhism or at least as more appropriate to the times. And surely, the apologetics of figures such as Yung-ming Yen-shou 永明延壽 ( ) the Sung prelate who actively sought a fusion of Ch an and Pure Land are only intelligible in so far as one can talk of two independent traditions to be so fused. The question as to whether it is appropriate to use Pure Land to refer to a self-conscious school, movement, or tradition in China is not, as I hope will become clear below, a mere terminological quibble. Unless we can clarify what exactly we might mean by Pure Land, notions such as Ch an/pure Land syncretism will remain problematic at best. 8 I was first led to explore this topic while working on the Pao-tsang lun 寶藏論, a late eighth-century text apocryphally attributed to Seng Chao 僧肇 ( ). 9 The third chapter of this somewhat obscure work contains a passage on the status of buddhas that appear to practitioners of nien-fo. The passage reads in part as follows: Let us suppose a person contemplates the Buddha and the Buddha appears, or contemplates the saògha and the saògha appears. It is actually neither Buddha nor is it not Buddha, and yet it appears as Buddha.... Why so? It appears because of that person s desire [for such a vision] while contemplating. Such people are unaware that the visions are products of their own minds.... The dharma-body is neither manifest nor not manifest. It transcends both intrinsic nature and the absence of intrinsic nature, it is neither existent nor nonexistent, and it is devoid of mind and intention. It cannot be measured against any standard. It is only that the ordinary person, following [the caprice of] his own mind, gives rise to the thought of seeing the Buddha. Having always believed that the Buddha exists outside his own mind, he does of the Chinese scholar Liu Ch ang-tung, who treats what he calls Amit bha Pure Land worship (Mi-t o ching-t u hsin-yang 彌陀淨土信仰 ) and Pure Land thought (ching-t u ssu-hsiang 淨土思想 ) as a phenomenon that permeated virtually all the early Buddhist schools in China, including San-lun 三論, Hua-yen, T ien-t ai, Ch an, and Wei-shih 唯識 (Liu 2000: ). 8 The application of the term syncretism to any historical phenomena is problematic and, in the end, rhetorical and ideological rather than descriptive, since it presupposes the existence of genetically pure prototypes. For references to the scholarly literature on the term syncretism and its application to Chinese religious phenomena see Sharf 2002: 290 n. 26 and Sharf 2002.

5 286 robert h. sharf not understand that it is through the coalescence of his own mind that [the Buddha] comes into being. 10 I initially assumed that this critique was aimed at Pure Land practitioners, and I thought that a clearer understanding of late eighthcentury Pure Land might provide a clue to the provenance of this text. But as I began my investigations I soon came to realize that there is no clear historical referent for the locution Chinese Pure Land tradition, and that scholars, assuming otherwise, have misconstrued the notion of Ch an/pure Land syncretism. This article will review the relevant evidence and go on to address the larger question as to why scholars were mislead in the first place. The Pure Land Patriarchate Chinese Buddhists, both monastic and lay, have, throughout their history, aspired to rebirth in the Pure Land, whether conceived of in metaphorical or in literal terms. The Pure Land is both a world of ease and bliss as well as a place wherein one may easily progress along the Buddhist path unencumbered by physical and mental impurities. To those born in the Pure Land, final liberation is assured. The aspiration to attain future birth in such a marvelous realm was not, of course, a uniquely Chinese development. Gregory Schopen has shown that the desire for rebirth in Sukh vatê the Land of Bliss was an important aspect of Mah y na in India as well, although this realm was not necessarily associated with the cult of Amit bha. A careful reading of passages mentioning Sukh vatê in a variety of early Mah y na scriptures reveals that rebirth in sukh vatê became a generalized religious goal open to the Mah y na community as a whole, and this development most likely occurred earlier than the second century A.D. 11 Nevertheless, the notion of a Pure Land, specifically Amit bha s Pure Land, played a central role in Chinese Buddhism virtually from its inception. One of the earliest Indian såtras rendered into Chinese was the Pratyutpannasam dhi-såtra, first translated by Lokakßema (Chih Lou-chia-ch an 支婁迦讖 ) in 179 A.D. 12 This scripture details the 10 T.1857: 149a21-24 and b10-13; Sharf 2002: Schopen 1977: 204; for a comparison of the Pure Land of Amit bha with that of Akßobhya, see Nattier Translated as the Pan-chou san-mei ching 般舟三昧經 (T.417). For a compre-

6 on pure land buddhism 287 practice of contemplating the Buddha (buddh nusmüti) which leads to a vision of the Buddha before one s very eyes. The text seems to have inspired Lu-shan Hui-yüan 廬山慧遠 ( ) and his followers to devote themselves to Amit bha on Mount Lu (Lu-shan 廬山 ). According to later tradition Hui-yüan s group, comprised of both monastic and lay followers, was called the White Lotus Society (Pailien she 白蓮社 ), and a vow taken by Hui-yüan and the 123 members of this group in 402 A.D. is often celebrated as the origin of the Pure Land school in China. 13 The four scriptures most closely associated with the Pure Land gained wide currency in China and, as I shall review below, representatives from virtually every major exegetical tradition of Buddhism in China wrote commentaries to one or more of them. The wide variety of practices that went under the general rubric of nienfo are to be found in the ritual manuals of all the principal liturgical traditions. A survey of the Chinese art-historical and archaeological record would further testify to the central importance of Amit bha in particular and the invocation of buddhas in general. It should not be necessary to belabor the central position occupied by Amit bha and his Pure Land in the history of Chinese Buddhism. Yet scholars are also accustomed to thinking of Pure Land as an independent tradition. Scholarly presentations of this tradition, in both Japanese and Western language sources, are frequently organized around a succession of Pure Land patriarchs. Although the list of figures varies, it invariably includes T an-luan, Tao-ch o, and Shantao; 14 another half-dozen or so monks also make occasional appearances in such lists, including Lu-shan Hui-yüan, Tz u-min, and Fa-chao. 15 Given that these monks constitute a mere fraction of those who wrote commentaries on Pure Land scriptures or essays on Pure Land themes, we might ask how but a handful came to be designated Pure Land patriarchs. Our search for the Pure Land school will begin with this question. hensive analysis of the various Tibetan and Chinese versions of this text, see Harrison 1978 and The appearance of the term White Lotus Society cannot, however, be dated earlier than mid-t ang. For an overview of Hui-yüan s activities, see Zürcher 1972: See, for example, the seminal Japanese studies by Mochizuki 1942 and Ogasawara 1951, as well as the recent English language discussions in Amstutz 1998: 24-29, Chappell 1996: 159, and Corless 1996, all of which foreground these three monks as the preeminent patriarchs of the Chinese Pure Land school. 15 This particular list is taken from Ch en 1964:

7 288 robert h. sharf Scholarly attempts to trace the sources of the Pure Land patriarchate often begin with Tao-ch o s An-le chi 安樂集, composed in the first half of the seventh century. 16 This text contains an enumeration of six worthies (liu ta-te 六大德 ), namely Bodhiruci 菩提流支, Hui-ch ung 慧寵, Tao-ch ang 道場, T an-luan, Ta-hai 大海, and Fa-shang 法上 ( ). 17 Tao-ch o apparently considered each of these figures to be an exemplar of Buddhist devotion and a major source of personal inspiration. Yet taken in and of itself it is difficult to construe Tao-ch o s list as a proto-pure Land lineage; it is not presented as such, and the relationship between some of these figures and Pure Land thought or practice is far from clear. Bodhiruci may well have contributed to Pure Land doctrine through his translation of the Ching-t u lun 淨土論 attributed to Vasubandhu, and he was supposedly responsible for T an-luan s conversion to Pure Land practice. 18 T an-luan is well known for his contributions to Pure Land exegesis; his Wang-sheng lun chu 往生論註 (T.1819), for example, clearly distinguishes the difficult path (nan-hsing tao 難行道 ) from the easy path (i-hsing tao 易行道 ), the latter of which depends on the powers of Amit bha s vows. But the final four persons on Tao-ch o s list are another matter. While Tao-ch o may have viewed them as exemplary Mah y na practitioners who aspired to rebirth in the Pure Land, the historical record contains next to nothing about their interest in or contributions to a Pure Land tradition. 19 In any 16 We will see below that scholars are influenced in this choice by the writings of the Japanese cleric HÙnen 法然 ( ). 17 T.1958: 47.14b The Ching-t u lun is also known as the Wang-sheng lun 往生論 (T.1524). 19 Virtually nothing is known of Hui-ch ung, although Mochizuki ShinkÙ attempts to identify him as the monk Tao-ch ung 道寵, a disciple of Bodhiruci (Mochizuki 1942: 64). Even if the identification is correct, there is still no evidence of any particular connection with Pure Land practice or exegesis. Tao-ch ang is best known as a student of the Ta-chih-tu lun 大智度論. The only surviving evidence of an interest in the Pure Land is found in the Fa-yüan chu-lin 法苑珠林, which reports that Taoch ang drew an image of Amit bha accompanied by fifty bodhisattvas that was popular in the capital (Mochizuki 1942: 64-65). Ta-hai is another figure about whom nothing is known. Mochizuki tries to identify him as the monk Hui-hai 慧海 ( ), who was known to have engaged in Pure Land devotions. One problem with this identification is that Hui-hai lived later than Fa-shang, the last person on this list that is otherwise in chronological order (Mochizuki 1942: 65). Finally, Fashang was Chief Controller (shang-t ung 上統 ) of the saògha during the Ch i Dynasty and was teacher of Ching-ying Hui-yüan 淨影慧遠 ( ). But again, there is no evidence of any particular interest in Pure Land thought or practice.

8 on pure land buddhism 289 case, Tao-ch o does not present them as patriarchs in any particular lineage. 20 Another source sometimes cited as influential in the construction of the Pure Land patriarchate are collections of biographies of Buddhist practitioners whose fervent devotion resulted in their rebirth in the Pure Land. The earliest extant collection is found in the third fascicle of the Ching-t u lun 淨土論 compiled around 650 by Chiats ai 迦才 ( ?). 21 This text lists the biographies of twenty persons in all, six monks, four nuns, five laymen, and five laywomen, each of whom is said to have attained birth yonder in the Pure Land (te wang-sheng ching-t u 得往生淨土 ). 22 The individual biographies bear witness to the religious fervor of these early practitioners of nien-fo, as well as to the miracles that occurred at the time of their death signaling their ascent to the Pure Land. Moreover, the list includes T an-luan and Tao-ch o (listed second and sixth respectively), two monks who occupy a prominent place in our modern conception of the Pure Land tradition. However, the remaining figures are rather obscure; many would be lost to history were it not for the brief biographies provided in this text. Given the nature of this list, it is difficult to mistake it for a patriarchal lineage in any sense of the word. Chia-ts ai s work served as a prototype for what was to emerge as a distinct genre, namely, collections of biographies of pious monastics and laypersons who attained rebirth in the Pure Land. Chia-ts ai s Ching-t u lun is believed to have influenced the first true biographical collection of this kind, the Wang-sheng hsi-fang ching-t u jui-ying chuan 往生西方淨土瑞應傳, compiled in the ninth century. 23 This text, attributed to Wen-shen 文諗 (9th c.) and Shao-k ang 少康 (d. 805) 24 but probably completed toward the end of the Five Dynasties, con- 20 On the six worthies, see Mochizuki 1942: 63-67; Chappell 1976: 70-79; and Tanaka 1990: This work should not be confused with the treatise of the same title attributed to Vasubandhu (see above). On Chia-ts ai s collection of Pure Land bibliographies, see esp. Mochizuki 1942: ; and Ogasawara 1951: T.1963: 47.97a-100a. 23 T.2070: a-108b. This text is considered extremely important by Japanese Pure Land scholars. There are many problems of dating, however, since at least one of the figures appearing in the text Emperor Hsi-tsung 僖宗帝 (r ) was born after the death of Shao-k ang, one of the putative authors. While Wenshen and Shao-k ang contributed an introduction to the text, it appears that the compilation continued to expand at the hand of the editor Tao-hsien 道詵 ; see Mochizuki 1942: , ; Mizuno et al., eds. 1977: 221; Ogasawara 1951:

9 290 robert h. sharf sists of the biographies of forty-eight figures. The beginning of the collection, which consists solely of eminent monks, is organized chronologically, starting with Hui-yüan, T an-luan, and Tao-chen 道珍, and working its way down to Tao-ch o and Shan-tao. The chronological organization found at the start of the work, however, breaks down as the figures become more obscure and the compilers move on to pious kings and empresses, women and youths. Most of the monks are noted for their fervent practice of nien-fo and for the miracles surrounding their death. Once again, there is no indication that this collection was intended to record a lineage of teachers or even an independent tradition of Pure Land adepts. The next extant work of this type is the Ching-t u wang-sheng chuan 淨土往生傳 by Chieh-chu 戒珠 ( ), published in This work, comprised of seventy-five biographies in three fascicles, is based on materials found in Tsan-ning s Sung kao-seng chuan 宗高僧傳. Again, this cannot be construed as either a lineage history or a work with a particularly sectarian agenda. Like the Wang-sheng hsi-fang chingt u jui-ying chuan, only considerably larger, this is a collection of biographies of pious figures whose devotions culminated in their rebirth in the Pure Land. The collection includes a variety of eminent monks associated with diverse traditions, including such notable T ien-t ai figures as Nan-yüeh Hui-ssu 南岳慧思 ( ), T ien-t ai Chih-i 天台智顗 ( ), and Kuan-ting 灌頂 ( ). 26 Chieh-chu s work went through a number of transformations at the hands of later editors. Shortly after its publication it was expanded to 115 biographies in four fascicles by a certain Wang Ku 王古 and renamed the Hsin-hsiu wang-sheng chuan 新修往生傳. In the middle of the twelfth century a layman Lu Shih-shou 陸師壽 added again to the work, bringing the total number of biographies up to 209. The now eight-fascicle collection was called the Pao-chu chi 寶珠集. Finally, the monk Hai-yin 海印 of Ssu-ming 四明 (near modern Ning-po) expanded the work to twelve fascicles under the title Ching-t u wang-sheng chuan 淨土往生傳. Of these four works, Chiehchu s alone is preserved in its entirety. 27 Another important collection of Pure Land biographies is found 24 For Shao-k ang s biography see Liu 2000: T.2071; see also Iwai See T.2071: b26-115a26, 115a27-116a22, and 118b10-c1, respectively. Note that HÙnen quotes sections from the Ching-t u wang-sheng chuan in his Ruiju jùdo goso den 類聚淨土五祖傳 (Iwai 1951: 64). 27 Hai-yin s work is lost, and only one of the eight fascicles of Lu Shih-shou s collection survives, as do bits and pieces of Wang Ku s work (Iwai 1951: 68-69).

10 on pure land buddhism 291 in the Lung-shu tseng-kuang ching-t u wen 龍舒增廣淨土文 (T.1970) by the layman Wang Jih-hsiu 王日休 of the Sung. 28 Wang states that he chose 30 out of over 200 accounts available to him of those who attained rebirth: Thirty accounts of men who succeeded through purification, the mediocre who achieved, the wicked who achieved, and the diseased and suffering who achieved are chosen from it for the purpose of arousing piety among the people. 29 The Ch an master Ta-hui Tsung-kao 大慧宗杲 ( ) wrote a laudatory postscript to this collection, a point whose significance will become evident below. 30 The Sung Buddhist historian Chih-p an 志盤 (fl ) apparently consulted several of these works as he compiled his own chapters on exemplars of Pure Land piety and devotion in his Fo-tsu t ung-chi 佛祖統紀 of But Chih-p an made a clear distinction between the profusion of biographies of those who attained rebirth on the one hand (the text contains 262 biographies in all), and the patriarchs of the Lotus Society (lien-she tsu 蓮社祖 ) on the other. 32 In this latter category, Chih-p an mentions only seven figures, all of whom were monks. But we have to back up for a moment. Chih-p an was not the first to construct an unambiguous list of Lotus Society patriarchs ; that honor goes to an earlier Sung Dynasty T ien-t ai historian, Shih-chih Tsung-hsiao 石芝宗曉 ( ). In his Le-pang wen-lei 樂邦文類, published in 1200, Tsung-hsiao records the biographies of the five dharma teachers in the succession of patriarchs of the Lotus Society (lien-she chi-tsu wu ta-fa-shih chuan 蓮社繼祖五大法師傳 ), namely Shantao, Fa-chao, Shao-k ang, Sheng-ch ang 省常 ( ) and Tsungtse 宗賾 (d.u.), author of the Ch an-yüan ch ing-kuei 禪苑清規. 33 In addition, Hui-yüan is placed at the head of the list as the Founding Patriarch (shih-tsu 始祖 ). 34 This appears to have been the first attempt to create a lineal succession of patriarchs committed to Lotus Society or Pure Land teachings On the date of this text, variously given as 1173, or , see Iwai 1951: T.1970: c7-9; trans. Iwai 1951: The postscript is preserved in T.1969: c Jan 1964: The biographies of the patriarchs are found in the first half of fascicle 26 (T.2035: c-265a), while the sections on those who attained rebirth comprise fascicles 27 and 28 (T.2035: b-290c). 33 Le-pang wen-lei, T.1969a: c18-193c T.1969a: b6-c The term White Lotus is by no means always synonymous with Pure Land

11 292 robert h. sharf Chih-p an modified Tsung-hsiao s list in his Fo-tsu t ung-chi, omitting Tsung-tse and adding Ch eng-yüan 36 and Yen-shou to arrive at a total of seven patriarchs. The number seven is significant as it follows earlier Ch an models, which themselves harken back to ancient imperial prototypes. 37 The number seven is also preserved in the list of lotus society patriarchs (lien-she li-tsu 蓮社立祖 ) found in the Ching-t u chih-kuei chi 淨土指歸集, a text compiled in 1393 by another T ien-t ai cleric, P eng-an Ta-yu 蓬庵大佑. Ta-yu modifies Chih-p an s list only slightly: he restores Tsung-tse, yet retains the number seven by separating Hui-yüan, heralded as the first patriarch (shih-tsu 始祖 ), from the list of seven succeeding patriarchs (chi-tsu 繼祖 ). 38 This enumeration remained more-or-less intact until the Ch ing dynasty, when Buddhist historians began to add later figures such as the influential Ming prelate Chu-hung 祩宏 ( ). 39 We have now arrived at a patriarchate of sorts, although to be precise the figures mentioned above are not referred to as Pure Land patriarchs but rather as patriarchs of the Lotus Society. Even more curious is the conspicuous absence of two key figures featured in every modern discussion of Chinese Pure Land: T anluan and Tao-ch o. 40 And then there is the question of why it was left to members of the T ien-t ai school to construct the so-called Pure Land patriarchal line. On the surface, one would assume that Tsung-hsiao, Chih-p an, and Ta-yu, being T ien-t ai monks, would have viewed Pure Land practice as one alternative among many within the broad framework of T ien-t ai soteriology; why did they feel the need to present the Lotus Society or Pure Land as an independent tradition? Also note that there is no consistent attempt to (see ter Haar 1992), but scholars have assumed that the two were closely associated in the minds of Sung T ien-t ai historians; see below. 36 For his biography, see Sasaki 1925: 68-72; Tsukamoto 1976a; Ui 1939: ; and Robson 2002: Jorgensen 1987: 10; Foulk and Sharf 1993/94: HTC b; Mochizuki 1942: ; Ogasawara 1963: Chu-hung shows up as the eighth or ninth patriarch, depending upon whether Tsung-tse is included. For an account of developments in the Ch ing that culminate in expanded lists of ten and thirteen patriarchs, see Ogasawara 1963: T an-luan does appear in P u-tu s 普度 ( ) Yüan period Lu-shan lien-tsung pao-chien 廬山蓮宗寶鑑. This text contains a section entitled An account of the orthodox sect of nien-fo [practitioners] (nien-fo cheng-p ai shuo 念佛正派說, T.1973: bff.) that includes T an-luan (T.1973: a23-b23). But this expanded group of biographies, which includes T ien-t ai Chih-i as well as a number of lay persons, does not constitute a patriarchate proper.

12 on pure land buddhism 293 structure the lineages around an unbroken transmission from master to disciple; Shan-tao, the second patriarch, was born some two hundred years following the death of the first patriarch Hui-yüan. Finally, three of the figures mentioned in the lists Ch eng-yüan, Yen-shou, and Tsung-tse were well known as members of Ch an lineages, and thus it is difficult to imagine that these figures were meant to be considered leaders of a Pure Land school in any exclusive sense. Daniel Getz has done extensive work on Sung T ien-t ai Pure Land in general and the construction of the Pure Land patriarchate in particular. According to his detailed reconstruction, the attempt to delineate such a patriarchate must be understood in terms of the relationship between the T ien-t ai school and the profusion of lay Buddhist societies in the Sung period. These societies posed a threat to the religious authority of the ordained saògha, and the attempt to establish a bona fide clerical patriarchate for these societies was, according to Getz s astute analysis, an attempt to reinforce ecclesiastical control. I take no issue with Getz s well-documented argument concerning the ideological and institutional agendas underlying the compilation of these patriarchal lists. The issue that remains to be clarified is the relationship of these lay societies to Pure Land practice. Such lay societies were themselves not a new phenomenon in the Sung; historical documents mention three such societies in the T ang and there may have been many more. However, none of the founders of the societies known to us Chih-yen 智琰 ( ), Shen-kao 神皓 ( ), and Shen-ts ou 神湊 ( ) had any particular affiliation with Pure Land or, for that matter, with T ien-t ai; both Shen-kao and Shen-ts ou were best known as Vinaya specialists. 41 Nor did Sheng-ch ang, founder of the first such society in the Sung and a member of the Lotus Society patriarchate according to both Tsung-hsiao and Chih-p an, have any particular Pure Land or T ient ai associations. Despite the fact that Sheng-ch ang s group was apparently inspired by the Lotus Society collective established by Lu-shan Hui-yüan, there is little evidence of Pure Land devotional practices in surviving documents See Getz 1994: References to the societies established by Chihyen, Shen-kao, and Shen-ts ou can be found in Hsü kao-seng chuan 續高僧傳, T.2060: a20-23; Sung kao-seng chuan, T.2061: a5; and ibid., T.2061: b, respectively. 42 See Getz 1994: ; 1999a: ; 1999b. Getz writes that Sheng-

13 294 robert h. sharf The next two societies dating to the Sung were indeed founded by T ien-t ai clerics. Tsun-shih 遵式 ( ) established a relatively modest group in 996, and Chih-li 知禮 ( ) followed on a grander scale in According to Getz, these groups, especially the one founded by Chih-li, served as models for later societies organized by their lineal descendents. Even several hundred years after Chih-li s death one still finds an emphasis on the oral recitation of the nien-fo as a means of gaining merit, on the use of charts to record recitations, and so on, all of which may be traced to Chih-li. At the same time, the place of the clergy in general, and of the T ien-t ai clergy in particular, becomes ambiguous as such societies proliferate in the Sung. Many of the societies that had monastic affiliations were associated with Vinaya or Ch an rather than with T ien-t ai establishments, and many more appear to have been run by pious laypersons with little or no clerical sponsorship or assistance. 43 Getz argues that for both Tsung-hsiao and Chih-p an the defining theme of the Pure Land patriarchate was precisely the proselytizing of Pure Land practice among the laity through the founding of such societies, despite the fact that there is little evidence that a number of the figures they deem to be patriarchs were ever involved with such groups. 44 This would explain the presence of Hui-yüan at the head of the list (his assembly on Mount Lu became the model for later societies), and Shan-tao as the second patriarch (he became associated with the advocacy of the oral nien-fo recitation among the laity). Getz speculates that Tsung-hsiao and Chih-p an s efforts to delineate an independent Pure Land patriarchate a lineage that conspicuously omits T ien-t ai figures such as Chih-li was a concession to the fact that many of the societies had no formal T ien-t ai connections and were essentially communal in nature, possessing their own institutional validity. 45 But there were complex doctrinal issues involved as well, as the status of the Pure Land and the soteriological mechanism involved in Pure Land practice became ch ang was not an advocate of Pure Land belief per se but was concerned primarily with justifying and spreading Buddhist belief among scholar-officials in the Hangzhou area. Furthermore, even though Pure Land belief was most certainly an element in the group that [Sheng-ch ang] organized, it was not central to this society s purpose and function (1994: 276). 43 Getz 1994: , and 1999a: On Tsun-shih s society, see also Stevenson Getz 1999a: 503. Getz finds no evidence that Shan-tao, Fa-chao, or Shaok ang ever established Pure Land societies. 45 Getz 1999a:

14 on pure land buddhism 295 one flash-point in the so-called shan-chia/shan-wai 山家山外 debates. 46 According to Getz, the doctrinal issues that preoccupied several generations of T ien-t ai polemicists can be traced to the fundamental discord between the system of T ien-t ai doctrine and meditative practices on the one hand and the nature of popular Pure Land devotion on the other. Speaking of Tsung-hsiao s Le-pang wen-lei, Getz believes it reflected the recognition that Pure Land belief and devotion could not be seamlessly woven into the doctrine of any one school. These doctrinal and cultivational issues, coupled with the prominence of Pure Land societies, might have revealed to Tsunghsiao a need to recognize the Pure Land tradition as possessing a separate identity requiring its own patriarchate. 47 This autonomy was then, according to Getz, reinforced in the patriarchate of Chihp an. For the moment I will put aside the issue of a fundamental incompatibility between Pure Land and other forms of Buddhism in China, including both T ien-t ai and Ch an. The issue at hand is the status of these T ien-t ai constructions in our search for the Chinese Pure Land school. As mentioned above, the figures touted as patriarchs of the Lotus Society by T ien-t ai monks were not ardent advocates of the exclusive practice of Pure Land. And two of the monks most closely associated with the Pure Land school in modern scholarship T an-luan and Tao-ch o are not recognized as patriarchs by Tsung-hsiao or Chih-p an at all. Getz, following well-established Buddhological precedents, views the term White Lotus society as more-or-less synonymous with Pure Land society. The evidence suggests, however, that the term White Lotus was a common appellation for lay Buddhist societies that may or may not have been under monastic leadership. Since these societies were devoted to proselytizing among the laity, it would be natural to find that many of them focused on devotion to Amit bha, practice of nien-fo recitation, and the aspiration for rebirth in the Pure Land. But there is little evidence that such elements were a defining or even prominent characteristic of all the societies associated with the White Lotus rubric. While Amit bha was a popular deity among both monks and the laity from the time of T ang, devotion to other deities, notably Kuan-yin, remained widespread. (Note that when dealing with monastic institutions or lay societies that centered on devotion to 46 For an overview of these debates, see esp. Chan 1999; Getz 1994: ; and Ziporyn Getz 1999a: 508.

15 296 robert h. sharf Kuan-yin, scholars do not refer to a Kuan-yin school or tradition. ) Besides, our modern notion of a Pure Land patriarchate has more to do with a particular strand of Pure Land exegesis than it does with the proliferation of lay societies. T an-luan, Tao-ch o, and Shan-tao are better known for their contribution to Pure Land thought than for spreading the faith among the masses. But then why focus on these particular figures? Any comprehensive survey of Pure Land doctrine in China would surely have to include the writings of the She-lun exegete Ching-ying Hui-yüan 淨影慧遠 ( ), 48 the Sanlun exegete Chi-tsang 吉藏 ( ), 49 the Fa-hsiang monk Tz u-en 慈恩 ( ), 50 the Hua-yen patriarch Chih-yen 智儼 ( ), 51 and virtually every major T ien-t ai figure, from Chih-i 52 and Chan- 48 On Ching-ying Hui-yüan s Pure Land thought, see Chappell 1977, and Tanaka Hui-yüan s most influential Pure Land work was his commentary to the Kuan Wu-liang-shou-fo ching, the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching i-shu 觀無量壽經義疏 (T.1749). 49 He is author of the Wu-liang-shou ching i-shu 無量壽經義疏 (T.1746), and the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching i-shu 觀無量壽經義疏 (T.1752). According to biographical sources, there is evidence that Chi-tsang worshipped twenty-five images associated with Amit bha s Pure Land, and at the time of his death he requested that his attendants offer incense to and invoke the name of the Buddha (Hsü kao-seng chuan, T.2060: c-514c; and Mochizuki 1942: 115). 50 Putative author of the Hsi-fang yao-chüeh shih-i t ung-kuei 西方要決釋疑通規 (T.1964), the O-mi-t o ching shu 阿彌陀經疏 (T.1757), and the O-mi-t o ching t ungtsan shu 阿彌陀經通贊疏 (T.1758). Mochizuki disputes the attribution of the first work, and the others are somewhat suspect as well (Mochizuki 1930: ). 51 For Chih-yen s biography, see the Hua-yen ching ch uan chi 華嚴經傳記, T.2073: b-164a; for his understanding of the Pure Land, see, for example, the sections on the ten kinds of Pure Land (shih-chung ching-t u 十種淨土 ) and the meaning of yonder birth (wang-sheng i 往生義 ) in the Hua-yen ching k ung-mu chang 華嚴經孔目章 (T.1870: a6-b7 and 576c8-578a6, respectively; see also the discussion in Mochizuki 1942: ). Note that according to Chih-p an s Fo-tsu t ung-chi, Tu-shun 社順 ( ), putative founder of Hua-yen, was also a devotee of the Pure Land (T.2035: c). On the Pure Land theories of later Hua-yen patriarchs, including Fa-tsang ( ) and Tsung-mi ( ), see Mochizuki 1942: Among the texts traditionally attributed to Chih-i are the Ching-t u shih-i lun 淨土十疑論 (T.1961), the Wu-fang-pien nien-fo men 五方便念佛門 (T.1962), the Kuan Wu-liang-shou-fo ching shu 觀無量壽佛經疏 (T.1750), and the O-mi-t o ching i chi 阿彌陀經義記 (T.1755). Scholars now believe that the extant Ching-t u shih-i lun is a later work, probably dating to the period (Pruden 1973: 129), but a work of that name was clearly associated with Chih-i in the T ang; see Robson 2002: 557, who references a stele inscription by Liu Tsung-yüan 柳宗元 ( ). The authenticity of Chih-i s Pure Land commentaries is similarly in doubt. However, Chih-i did make a significant contribution to Pure Land thought; see esp. his analysis of the Pure Land in the Wei-mo ching lüeh-shu 維摩經略疏, T.1778: a-565b (Mochizuki 1942: ; Chappell 1977: 32-36), and his detailed analysis of the

16 on pure land buddhism 297 jan 湛然 ( ) 53 down through Chih-li 54 and Chih-yüan 智圓 ( ). 55 Not only did every one of these monks contribute to Pure Land doctrine, but each was, according to tradition, the author of a commentary on one or more of the Pure Land scriptures. (It is true that the attributions of some of the commentaries notably those by Tz u-en and Chih-i are no longer accepted by modern scholars; nonetheless, the attributions were accepted by the medieval Chinese ecclesiastical community. In other words, no one raised eyebrows at a Fa-hsiang or T ien-t ai monk writing commentaries on Pure Land scriptures.) Some are wont to distinguish, on doctrinal grounds, the writings of orthodox Pure Land patriarchs such as T an-luan and Shan-tao from the many others who commented on Pure Land scriptures or wrote on Pure Land themes. Such orthodoxy would entail the belief that Pure Land was a distinct (if not superior) practice with its own soteriological logic predicated on the power of Amit bha s fundamental vow. The supposedly crucial distinction between self-power and other-power, first clearly articulated by T an-luan, would then serve as one defining mark of orthodoxy. Another might be the belief that reliance on self-power was inappropriate or misguided in the latter days of the dharma (mo-fa 末法 ), or that the oral recitation of Amit bha s name was to be favored over other forms of practice, or that Amit bha is a saòbhogak ya-buddha rather than a nirm Öak yabuddha and that his Pure Land transcends the triple realm. The problem is that any attempt to isolate the unique doctrinal characteristics of orthodox Chinese Pure Land exegesis is to put the cart before the horse. The more basic question is whether the Chinese tradition itself ever distinguished orthodox Pure Land from a more generic variety, on doctrinal or any other grounds. So far we have found little evidence that medieval Chinese Buddhists viewed T an-luan, Tao-ch o, and Shan-tao as belonging to a unique school or even to a distinctive tradition of Pure Land exegesis. Their contributions to the evolution of Pure Land exegesis and Amit bha devotion were acknowledged, but traditional Buddhist historians treated them not pratyutpanna-sam dhi the centerpiece of the constantly walking sam dhi (ch anghsing san-mei 常行三昧 ) in the Mo-ho chih-kuan 摩訶止觀 (Stevenson 1986: 58-61). 53 On his laudatory comments on Amit bha, the Pure Land, and Pure Land practice, see, for example, his Chih-kuan fu-hsing-chuan hung-chüeh 止觀輔行傳弘決, T.1912: c, and the Fa-hua wen-chü chi 法華文句記, T.1719: b. 54 Author of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou-fo ching shu miao-tsung ch ao 觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 (T.1751). 55 Author of the O-mi-t o ching shu 阿彌陀經疏 (T.1760).

17 298 robert h. sharf as exponents of a singular form of Buddhism but rather as accomplished scriptural commentators and/or specialists in dhy na. So we return to our question as to the source for our notion of the Chinese Pure Land patriarchate. As it turns out, the answer lies not in China but in the Japanese JÙdoshå 淨土宗 and JÙdo Shinshå 淨土真宗 traditions. The first person to explicitly construct a Pure Land patriarchate, as modern scholars have come to understand the notion, was the founder of Japanese JÙdo Buddhism, HÙnen 法然 ( ). And there is little doubt that HÙnen s conception of the Pure Land school was unprecedented at the time. The novelty of HÙnen s position is apparent from the self-conscious and somewhat apologetic manner in which he sets about his task. Near the beginning of HÙnen s influential Senchaku hongan nembutsushå 選擇本願念佛集 of 1198, 56 the question is raised concerning the absence of any reference to a Pure Land school (chingt u tsung 淨土宗 ) in Chinese sources: Question: As for establishing the name of this school, originally there were eight or nine schools such as Kegon, Tendai, and so on. But I have never heard that the followers of the Pure Land established a name for their school. Thus what evidence is there for what you now refer to as the Pure Land school? Answer: There is more than one reference to the name Pure Land school. Wo[ nhyo s 元曉 Yusim allak-to 遊心安樂道 states: The Pure Land school was originally intended for both common people as well as sages. 57 Moreover, Tz u-en s Hsi-fang yao-chüeh 西方要決 says: We rely on this single school. 58 Furthermore, Chia-ts ai s Ching-t u lun says: This single school is the essential way. 59 With evidence like this there is no room for doubt. 60 I have translated the passage above in accordance with HÙnen s reading, but it is clear that, intentionally or not, HÙnen was taking his proof-texts out of context. Note that in only one of the examples namely Wo[ nhyo s ( ) Yusim allak-to do we actually find the phrase ching-t u tsung; the other two texts refer only to the i-tsung 一宗 or single school. Moreover, in each passage cited by HÙnen the more natural reading of the term tsung is not school, sect, or lineage, but rather essential tenet or central doctrine. In other words, HÙnen is only able to cite three texts (two of which are of questionable provenance) 61 to support his claim for the existence of 56 An alternative date for publication is 1204; see HÙnen 1998: 163 n T.1965: b T.1964: a T.1963: 47.83b T.2608: 83.1c10-12; Ishii ed. 1955: 511; cf. HÙnen 1998: Note also that the attribution of the Yusim allak-to to Wo[ nhyo has been called

18 on pure land buddhism 299 a Pure Land school in China, yet on examination the passages do not refer to a school at all and thus fail to buttress HÙnen s argument. That the question is placed at the beginning of the Senchakushå is tacit admission that HÙnen was staking out new territory in his attempt to forge an East Asian Pure Land school. This becomes obvious later in the same text, as he attempts to situate his Pure Land school within the larger field of Chinese Buddhism. First, in identifying the three Pure Land scriptures, HÙnen freely admits that he is innovating, since there is no Chinese precedent for this particular bibliographic category. 62 HÙnen makes the same admission when he posits, for the first time, a patriarchal tradition for his school. He declares that just as all other Buddhist schools such as T ien-t ai and Shingon have a patriarchal succession ( inheritance of the bloodline, sùjù kechimyaku 相承血脈 ), his Pure Land school should have one as well. In the Senchakushå account of the Pure Land patriarchate, HÙnen begins by noting that there are three different lineages within the single Pure Land school, namely those of (1) Lu-shan Hui-yüan, (2) Tz u-min, and (3) Tao-ch o, Shan-tao, etc. There are, according to him, two alternative ways of conceiving of the third lineage: the first is comprised of the six worthies taken from Tao-ch o s An-le chi (see above), while the second consists of Bodhiruci, T an-luan, Tao-ch o, Shan-tao, Huai-kan 懷感 (d. ca. 689), and Shao-k ang. 63 The latter five T an-luan, Tao-ch o, Shan-tao, Huai-kan, and Shao-k ang are featured as the five Pure Land patriarchs in HÙnen s Ruiju jùdo gosoden 類聚淨土五祖傳, and this becomes the standard enumeration of the JÙdo patriarchate in later sectarian works. 64 HÙnen is at pains to justify his choice of patriarchs in general and his exaltation of Shan-tao in particular. Toward the end of his Senchakushå he explains why, given the many important Pure Land scriptural exegetes in China, he depends primarily on Shan-tao: Question: In each of the Kegon, Tendai, Shingon, Zen, Sanron, and HossÙ [traditions], there were masters who composed essays and commentaries on into question, and it likely postdates the traditional seventh-century dating (Buswell 1989: n. 60). Scholars have also raised doubts concerning the authorship of the Hsi-fang yao-chüeh; see Mochizuki 1930: T.2608: 83.2a7-14; Ishii ed. 1955: T.2608: 83.2b28-c13; Ishii ed. 1955: 313; HÙnen 1998: 62; see the similar discussion in the Gyakushu seppù 逆修說法, Ishii ed. 1955: See the Ruiju jùdo gosoden, Ishii ed. 1955:

19 300 robert h. sharf the Pure Land teachings. Why do you not rely on those masters but make use of Shan-tao alone? Answer: Although all those masters composed essays and commentaries on the Pure Land, they did not take Pure Land as their central tenet 宗. Rather they took the Path of the Sages 聖道 as their central tenet. Therefore I did not rely on those teachers. Shan-tao took the Pure Land as his central tenet rather than the Path of the Sages, and thus I rely on him alone. Q: There are many Pure Land patriarchal teachers 淨土祖師 such as Chiats ai of the Hung-fa temple or the Tripiãaka Master Tz u-min. Why do you not rely on masters such as those but make use of Shan-tao alone? A: Although those masters made Pure Land their central tenet, they did not attain sam dhi. Shan-tao is someone who attained sam dhi and thus attested to the way. Therefore I use him. Q: If it is a matter of relying on one who has attained sam dhi, then you must allow that the dhy na master Huai-kan also attained it. Why not use him? A: Shan-tao was the master and Huai-kan the disciple. I rely on the master, not the disciple. Moreover, there are numerous instances where [Huai-kan] runs contrary to his master s teaching, and thus I do not use him. Q: If you rely on the master and not the disciple, then the dhy na master Tao-ch o was Shan-tao s master and he is also a Pure Land patriarch. Why not use him? A: Although Tao-ch o was indeed [Shan-tao s] master, he did not attain sam dhi and thus did not personally know whether he would attain rebirth or not. 65 The thrust of the discussion is then the criteria by which one could identify orthodox Pure Land masters from among the dozens of Pure Land exegetes and accomplished adepts in China. HÙnen s particular defence of his emphasis on the teachings of Shan-tao would have been unnecessary had Shan-tao s stature and authority as a Pure Land exegete been a matter of broad consensus at the time. HÙnen s reading of Shan-tao his insistence, for example, that Shantao advocated the exclusive reliance on Pure Land teachings, or that he championed the oral recitation of the nien-fo over other methods was so influential that only recently have Western scholars begun to question it. 66 We can also now appreciate why texts such as Taoch o s An-le chi and Chia-ts ai s Ching-t u lun have been presented as if they constituted early attempts to construct a Pure Land patriarchate; this too is due to HÙnen s enduring legacy. It would seem that the modern reconstruction of a Chinese Pure Land school with its own patriarchate has its roots not so much in China as in the writings of HÙnen. 65 T.2608: 83.19a5-24; Ishii ed ; cf. HÙnen 1998: For an attempt at reappraising Shan-tao s writing free of the influence of Japanese sectarian concerns, see Pas 1995.